Judge Calls Health Law Unconstitutional

[Parker2112]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703727804576017552229615230.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEADNewsCollection


chalk one round up, true believers. pendulum will begin to swing back.

[boutons_deux]

So uninsured people, who can't pay or won't pay for insurance, really will be able to get free medical care from tax-payer financed sick-care services.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Constitution? What's that? Isn't it a "flawed" document?

[Parker2112]

So uninsured people, who can't pay or won't pay for insurance, really will be able to get free medical care from tax-payer financed sick-care services.

govt can only be the magic bullet if the constitution says so.

Its time we quit stretching the document beyond recognition, and then maybe the govt will stop stretching the little man over the rack.

if you want a hero, dont look to politicians.

[FromWayDowntown]

See, here's what I don't get (and I'm not arguing with the merits of this decision):

If the same judge had reached the same ruling on some issue that was near and dear to the hearts of conservatives -- say a Legislative enactment that prohibited same-sex marriage -- he'd be immediately labeled an "activist" who was legislating from the bench.

Somehow, I'm doubting that Judge Hudson is going to attract that label here.

(by the way, in a bit of judicial trivia, Judge Hudson is also the judge who sentenced Michael Vick a few years ago).

[Parker2112]

See, here's what I don't get (and I'm not arguing with the merits of this decision):

If the same judge had reached the same ruling on some issue that was near and dear to the hearts of conservatives -- say a Legislative enactment that prohibited same-sex marriage -- he'd be immediately labeled an "activist" who was legislating from the bench

republicans would, because they are just as willing to trash the constitution as democrats. both parties blow. hence the state of the nation. the two parties in power are responsible in every sense of the word.

Libertarians would not, because they actually try to conform to the document. Also, they are social liberals, and fiscal conservatives.

[boutons_deux]

"Libertarians would not, because they actually try to conform to the document"

there are no parts or amendments that the libertarians would change to "conform" to their extremism?

[spursncowboys]

I don't know about repubs but I thought activist judges were the ones based their ruling on what is right to them and not whiter it is constitutional or not.

[Bartleby]

I don't know about repubs but I thought activist judges were the ones based their ruling on what is right to them and not whiter it is constitutional or not.

And an example of a judge who based a decision on what was right to them without stating the constitutional grounds for that decision would be . . . ?

[angrydude]

the correct definition of an "activist" judge is a judge who proactively creates a "right" which affects everyone under his jurisdiction (like the right to privacy, the right to housing) where none existed before. Basically this comes from 14th amendment cases only.

But people like to throw around the term whenever any ruling goes against their wishes.

[Parker2112]

"Libertarians would not, because they actually try to conform to the document"

there are no parts or amendments that the libertarians would change to "conform" to their extremism?

you tell me.

[Parker2112]

the correct definition of an "activist" judge is a judge who proactively creates a "right" which affects everyone under his jurisdiction (like the right to privacy, the right to housing) where none existed before. Basically this comes from 14th amendment cases only.

But people like to throw around the term whenever any ruling goes against their wishes.

that right to privacy is a pretty big limitation on government's authority to:

feel up your wife when she boards a plane,
step into your bedroom and tell you when and how to ejaculate,
make your medical decisions for you or your family,
tell you how to raise your kids, etc.
Dont think the founding fathers would have stood for that shit either. just sayin.

But yeah, your pretty much on the money there.

[MannyIsGod]

Several other judges don't see it that way hence their opposing rulings. I won't really have a problem with this being overturned as I pretty much hate the mandate without a public option but it will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court rules when they finally hear the case.

[Winehole23]

The ruling:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/docs/Hudson_ruling.pdf?hpid=topnews

[boutons_deux]

"Supreme Court"

... is extreme right wing and Repug, corruptly electing dubya in 2000, then overturning 100 years of stare decisis to call corporations persons.

If something is good for individuals and bad for corps, the 5 SCOTUS right-wing activists will come down on the side of corps, institutions, capitalists.

[Winehole23]

... I'm not arguing with the merits of this decisionDisappointing. I'd be interested in your view of the merits in particular. It might give color to your sly suggestion that Judge Hudson is legislating his political preferences rather than following the law.


Somehow, I'm doubting that Judge Hudson is going to attract that label here.Does he deserve the label for this particular ruling? Honest question. I'm still reading through the ruling.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think there were any suggestions in fwdt's post outside of his point on the activist label.

[Winehole23]

The suggestion was sly, not straightforward. Wondering why the label is not applied in a particular case seems to solicit the inference that perhaps it ought to be.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So if the govt can't make you buy insurance, why do I have to buy auto insurance to drive?

If the response is "driving is a privilege", then, are we equating healthcare to being a privilege?

If it is then a privilige then hospitals could theoretically, (based on this opinion) turn people away rather than provide health services.

The state can deny you a license and send you to jail for not having auto insurance now...


I think both of these issues need to be held to a consistent standard.

[MannyIsGod]

The suggestion was sly, not straightforward. Wondering why the label is not applied in a particular case seems to solicit the inference that perhaps it ought to be.

Nah. FWDT has a long history of hating the term judicial activism on this forum so he's just ranting about it a bit more, IMO. I could be wrong, but given the context of FWDT's posting history I think its an accurate assessment.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Nah. FWDT has a long history of hating the term judicial activism on this forum so he's just ranting about it a bit more, IMO. I could be wrong, but given the context of FWDT's posting history I think its an accurate assessment.

He's absolutely right...

[MannyIsGod]

So if the govt can't make you buy insurance, why do I have to buy auto insurance to drive?

If the response is "driving is a privilege", then, are we equating healthcare to being a privilege?

If it is then a privilige then hospitals could theoretically, (based on this opinion) turn people away rather than provide health services.

The state can deny you a license and send you to jail for not having auto insurance now...


I think both of these issues need to be held to a consistent standard.

I think the difference being that there is no federaly mandated requirement for automobile insurance. That is something the states do but the federal government does not.

I haven't read the ruling but that was the obvious difference in the mandates when the bill passage was going being debated.

[MannyIsGod]

He's absolutely right...

I agree.

[FromWayDowntown]

The suggestion was sly, not straightforward. Wondering why the label is not applied in a particular case seems to solicit the inference that perhaps it ought to be.

If that's what you discern about my post, I think you're reading way too much into what I wrote.

I have a general disinclination to the "activist" judge concept because I think it to be a mostly unprincipled and meaningless term used primarily to castigate judges who make decisions that do not comport with one side's view of a particular issue. When a politically-charged issue is decided by a judge, I'm interested to see whether my sense that the term "activist" is largely based on whether one likes the outcome or not will be validated.

I offer no opinion on the ruling because I truly have none. I have not read it and don't intend to read it in the immediate future.

Truly, my lone interest in this thread was to note (here, in the form of a question) my suspicion that the relatively popularity with any particular judicial determination seems to have a substantial amount to do with whether the person issuing that determination is considered an "activist" or not, regardless of the analytical means used to achieve that end.

p.s. -- if my statement that I'm not "arguing" with the merits was taken as a suggestion that I've developed an opinion concerning the merits, that was a poor word choice on my part.

[TeyshaBlue]

So if the govt can't make you buy insurance, why do I have to buy auto insurance to drive?

If the response is "driving is a privilege", then, are we equating healthcare to being a privilege?

If it is then a privilige then hospitals could theoretically, (based on this opinion) turn people away rather than provide health services.

The state can deny you a license and send you to jail for not having auto insurance now...


I think both of these issues need to be held to a consistent standard.

Hospitals, private hospitals, can and will deny treatment. It's not theoretical. County hospitals cannot due to existing federal mandates tied to continued funding. Driving is certainly a privilege, if a privilege is defined as activity not covered under the rights clauses.
That the state can deny you a license is indicative of the states exercising their individual rights as states to regulate their licensing. Way different than a fed mandate of the same stripe.

[TeyshaBlue]

Stupid Manny beat my ass to the point.:bang:lol

[Winehole23]

If that's what you discern about my post, I think you're reading way too much into what I wrote. I wasn't sure. Thanks for clarifying.

I have a general disinclination to the "activist" judge concept because I think it to be a mostly unprincipled and meaningless term used primarily to castigate judges who make decisions that do not comport with one side's view of a particular issue. I agree strongly with this.

I offer no opinion on the ruling because I truly have none. I have not read it and don't intend to read it in the immediate future.
Fair enough.

p.s. -- if my statement that I'm not "arguing" with the merits was taken as a suggestion that I've developed an opinion concerning the merits, that was a poor word choice on my part.I thought perhaps you had. My bad. Thx for your reply.

[Winehole23]

Sidenote: Judge Hudson severed the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision from the ACA.

pp.40-41

[boutons_deux]

http://acalitigationblog.blogspot.com/

[TeyshaBlue]

http://acalitigationblog.blogspot.com/

That's a good recap of the ruling with the pro and cons of the Judge's analysis laid out. Thanks!:toast

[FromWayDowntown]

I did briefly peruse an interesting academic discussion between two very smart law professors at Volokh Conspiracy about the nature and scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause (U.S. Const., Art. I, section 8, cl. 18)("The Congress shall have the Power . . . To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the [enumerated powers in Art. I, section 8] . . . .") and its interplay with the enumerated powers (and, specifically, the Commerce Clause).

http://volokh.com/2010/12/13/the-significant-error-in-judge-hudsons-opinion/

http://volokh.com/2010/12/13/further-thoughts-on-the-virginia-health-care-ruling-and-the-necessary-and-proper-clause/

Apparently, the court's opinion considers, but ultimately dismisses, an argument that the N&P clause gives a Constitutional basis for the enactment. One might think that such a determination will become a significant part of the appellate arguments at subsequent levels.

[Winehole23]

This is a completely defensible, if controversial, reading of the Supreme Court's precedent. The biggest difficulty for this argument, however--and one with which Judge Hudson did not grapple--is why Congress can use other Article I powers to compel individuals to do something. For example, it has long been settled that Congress can use its powers under Article I, section 8, clauses 12 and 13 (to "raise and support Armies" and "provide and maintain a Navy") to force individuals to register for the military draft. It can use its Article I, section 8, clause 9 power (to "constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court") to compel individuals to serve on juries. It can use a variety of its Article I powers to compel individuals to transfer their title to property pursuant to a condemnation (though, of course, the government must pay "just compensation").Monday morning quarterbacking. The USG didn't rely on any of these arguments regarding Section 1501(b)(1) of the ACA.

[angrydude]

fact of the matter is, the modern Supreme court has been very wary of any arguments saying that there is no limit to the commerce clause power. If there are any actual limits, they are certainly going to find this is outside of them.

It'll be a 5-4 decision, but all you need is 5.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think there may be at least some chance that the Supreme Court chooses not to review the judgment in this case and waits for the other circuits to offer their views on the law. Such reticence is fairly common for a number of reasons; it may also be somewhat pragmatic, depending upon how the electoral winds are blowing in the next 18 months.

[jacobdrj]

So if the govt can't make you buy insurance, why do I have to buy auto insurance to drive?

If the response is "driving is a privilege", then, are we equating healthcare to being a privilege?

If it is then a privilige then hospitals could theoretically, (based on this opinion) turn people away rather than provide health services.

The state can deny you a license and send you to jail for not having auto insurance now...


I think both of these issues need to be held to a consistent standard.

This.

[ElNono]

Mandating compulsive purchases of goods from the private sector is not right, and where does it end? That's where it went completely wrong for this monstrosity.

The real solution was a mixed system of government-run and price controlled baseline care, with a privately-run insurance option/overlay on top for those who want it or can afford it. But that boat already sailed.

[Parker2112]

So if the govt can't make you buy insurance, why do I have to buy auto insurance to drive?

If the response is "driving is a privilege", then, are we equating healthcare to being a privilege?

If it is then a privilige then hospitals could theoretically, (based on this opinion) turn people away rather than provide health services.

The state can deny you a license and send you to jail for not having auto insurance now...


I think both of these issues need to be held to a consistent standard.


not the same at all. Car insurance is there to protect third parties and property. Health insurance is there to ensure you have access to medical care.

If you get sick no third parties get hurt or suffer loss of property.

As for the cost to hospitals, If the government wants to pick up the tab, its up to them.

These two issues are completely seperate and there is no need to link the two.

Auto Ins is mandated to drive, which is a privilege. The prerequisite for having health care under this legislation is simply being alive.

A tax on being alive is justifiable?

I dont fucking think so.

such a mandate really is the epitome of the type of tyranny our founding fathers were trying to escape...the type of oppressive government that wielded the power to enslave the population.

The scope of this power, if upheld, can be extended to bring the masses under the boot of the federal govts heel. That very possibility is supposed to be precluded under our constitution.

Funny how this shit is so simple, yet so ungraspable for those who have come to see big govt as beneficial and necessary. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

the correct definition of an "activist" judge is a judge who proactively creates a "right" which affects everyone under his jurisdiction (like the right to privacy, the right to housing) where none existed before. Basically this comes from 14th amendment cases only.

But people like to throw around the term whenever any ruling goes against their wishes.

Which is pretty retarded anyways, since the 9th amendment says that the Consitution is about limiting specific rights of the government, and that the people may have rights that aren't explicitly outlined.

[boutons_deux]

Affordable Care Act, just another lie.

the sick-care industry wouldn't allow govt to touch the industries exorbitant prices.

[Parker2112]

not the same at all. Car insurance is there to protect third parties and property. Health insurance is there to ensure you have access to medical care.

If you get sick no third parties get hurt or suffer loss of property.

As for the cost to hospitals, If the government wants to pick up the tab, its up to them.

These two issues are completely seperate and there is no need to link the two.

Auto Ins is mandated to drive, which is a privilege. The prerequisite for having health care under this legislation is simply being alive.

A tax on being alive is justifiable?

I dont fucking think so.

such a mandate really is the epitome of the type of tyranny our founding fathers were trying to escape...the type of oppressive government that wielded the power to enslave the population.

The scope of this power, if upheld, can be extended to bring the masses under the boot of the federal govts heel. That very possibility is supposed to be precluded under our constitution.

Funny how this shit is so simple, yet so ungraspable for those who have come to see big govt as beneficial and necessary. :lol

"those who have come" = Manny, btw...:lol

[jack sommerset]

This.

No not this. George is stupid. Check this link out.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2877236/the_difference_between_auto_insurance.html?cat=9

[TheProfessor]

fact of the matter is, the modern Supreme court has been very wary of any arguments saying that there is no limit to the commerce clause power. If there are any actual limits, they are certainly going to find this is outside of them.

It'll be a 5-4 decision, but all you need is 5.
I suspect you're talking about Lopez and Morrison, but that same Court swung back in the other direction in Gonzales v. Reich. I might expect Scalia to abruptly reverse course, but not Kennedy, and he'll be the fifth vote if necessary. Also, I think Chief Justice Roberts, as willing as he's been to change other precedent, would have a hard time altering the fundamental understanding of the interstate commerce clause.

[TheProfessor]

I think there may be at least some chance that the Supreme Court chooses not to review the judgment in this case and waits for the other circuits to offer their views on the law. Such reticence is fairly common for a number of reasons; it may also be somewhat pragmatic, depending upon how the electoral winds are blowing in the next 18 months.
That makes a lot of sense actually, get the lay of the land.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No not this. George is stupid. Check this link out.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2877236/the_difference_between_auto_insurance.html?cat=9

translation: this issue is way above my head so i will find someone else's thoughts and use them to call someone else stupid..

[FromWayDowntown]

That makes a lot of sense actually, get the lay of the land.

The cynic in me keeps suggesting that pragmatism here is more about whether the composition of the Court will change (based on who might be President) and make a particular outcome for or against the legislation more likely.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The cynic in me keeps suggesting that pragmatism here is more about whether the composition of the Court will change (based on who might be President) and make a particular outcome for or against the legislation more likely.

Unfortunately now we are relegated to keeping score on SC justices.. right now it's 5-4 conservatives so most controversial cases will be 5-4..right along party lines. I know this is terrible to say but I REALLY hope we lose a righty before Obama leaves...

[boutons_deux]

There's nothing that says 9 is magic.

Obama could appoint 2 progressives and win 6-5.

[xrayzebra]

There's nothing that says 9 is magic.

Obama could appoint 2 progressives and win 6-5.

boutons, you ignorance is showing again.

"The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, frequently called the court-packing plan,[1] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that had been previously ruled unconstitutional. The central and most controversial provision of the bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every sitting member over the age of 70½."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937

Not a new idea, but one that will never happen
as Roosevelt found out.

[boutons_deux]

A judicial bill isn't the Constitution, is it?

[xrayzebra]

Never mind boutons. Congress would have to go along with
the expansion. And there isn't a snow ball in hell of getting
more Justices appoint.

[SnakeBoy]

See, here's what I don't get (and I'm not arguing with the merits of this decision):

If the same judge had reached the same ruling on some issue that was near and dear to the hearts of conservatives -- say a Legislative enactment that prohibited same-sex marriage -- he'd be immediately labeled an "activist" who was legislating from the bench.

Somehow, I'm doubting that Judge Hudson is going to attract that label here.

(by the way, in a bit of judicial trivia, Judge Hudson is also the judge who sentenced Michael Vick a few years ago).

I don't get why you don't "get it". Hypocrisy is part of our human nature. It shouldn't suprise you that conservatives, liberals, and everyone in between are hypocrites. I don't even view hypocrisy as a negative, just something to be expected when dealing with any human being.

[SnakeBoy]

Auto Ins is mandated to drive, which is a privilege.

Why is it so readily accepted by pretty much all political points of view that traveling freely in a free country is a privilege and not a right?

[jack sommerset]

translation: this issue is way above my head so i will find someone else's thoughts and use them to call someone else stupid..

That's it. These are not thoughts, stupid. It's reality. Auto insurance and Obamacare are not even close to the same. Next you will be spewing even if you don't drive or own a car you should pay for auto insurance. It's the right thing to do! Then you will be spewing "I deserve to live in a house instead of an apartment" or "Why can't I have have tickets to the Spews game, I am a fan too"

You want better doctors, freaking pay for them. Quit asking everyone else to pay. Until then, stand in line at the local free clinic and if you have an emergency run your little ass to the hospital or better yet get a fucking job that can pay for the life style you want to have.

You are a idiot. Plain and simple.

[spursncowboys]

That's it. These are not thoughts, stupid. It's reality. Auto insurance and Obamacare are not even close to the same. Next you will be spewing even if you don't drive or own a car you should pay for auto insurance. It's the right thing to do! Then you will be spewing "I deserve to live in a house instead of an apartment" or "Why can't I have have tickets to the Spews game, I am a fan too"

You want better doctors, freaking pay for them. Quit asking everyone else to pay. Until then, stand in line at the local free clinic and if you have an emergency run your little ass to the hospital or better yet get a fucking job that can pay for the life style you want to have.

You are a idiot. Plain and simple.

Except for all the name calling, this is a great post.

[jacobdrj]

Why is it so readily accepted by pretty much all political points of view that traveling freely in a free country is a privilege and not a right?

Especially since most people's livelihoods depend on it. Far less significant things have been given 'right' status. I would argue being able to travel by car is at least as important as having a refrigerator, which in some places, it is mandated that enough electricity must be available in a home to power one...

[jacobdrj]

That's it. These are not thoughts, stupid. It's reality. Auto insurance and Obamacare are not even close to the same. Next you will be spewing even if you don't drive or own a car you should pay for auto insurance. It's the right thing to do! Then you will be spewing "I deserve to live in a house instead of an apartment" or "Why can't I have have tickets to the Spews game, I am a fan too"

You want better doctors, freaking pay for them. Quit asking everyone else to pay. Until then, stand in line at the local free clinic and if you have an emergency run your little ass to the hospital or better yet get a fucking job that can pay for the life style you want to have.

You are a idiot. Plain and simple.

Name calling aside, My concern is less with the 'others should pay' problem than the 'get what you already paid for' problem.
The fact that you could have been kicked off a plan for a pre-existing condition that is only deemed pre-existing based on arbitrary indicators at the whim of whatever insurance provider that is covering you is laughable. Any system where you don't get what you paid for is a broken system. At the very least, people denied coverage for preexisting conditions should have been given their money back with interest for a retroactively worthless policy.

I am not sure Obamacare is the solution, but it was something, much like no child left behind was at least an attempt at solving a perceived/real problem.

I want simple reforms. I want all doctors to list their prices/rates. I want insurance companies to be absolutely transparent in their costs/procedures. Same goes for doctors and pharmacies.

[jack sommerset]

Sounds like that's where Barry should have started from.

[ElNono]

Why is it so readily accepted by pretty much all political points of view that traveling freely in a free country is a privilege and not a right?

Just educate yourself instead of repeating uninformed banter:
Freedom of movement under United States law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law)

[ElNono]

Except for all the name calling, this is a great post.

Actually it's a terrible post.

We're already paying for all the stuff he's bitching about through our taxes.
All these guys with pre-existing conditions or borderline heart-attack lifestyles? We're paying through the nose for it. All those people that get their insurance claims invalidated? We pay for those too in the long run.

Not only that. Because all these hospitals have to turn in an actual profit due to their duty to their shareholders, we're all paying for the care + the profit margin. That's how you end up with inflated prices and cost of care that's through the roof.

The goal should be to have as healthy a society as possible, since that obviously benefits the country as a whole. There's many ways to get there, but the system we had was not it, and this law that was passed is not it either.

[ducks]

So uninsured people, who can't pay or won't pay for insurance, really will be able to get free medical care from tax-payer financed sick-care services.

it is not a right to have insurance

if you have no money and you need help
then you die it is ok
sounds harsh but reality is reality

[jack sommerset]

Actually it's a terrible post.

We're already paying for all the stuff he's bitching about through our taxes.
All these guys with pre-existing conditions or borderline heart-attack lifestyles? We're paying through the nose for it. All those people that get their insurance claims invalidated? We pay for those too in the long run.

Not only that. Because all these hospitals have to turn in an actual profit due to their duty to their shareholders, we're all paying for the care + the profit margin. That's how you end up with inflated prices and cost of care that's through the roof.

The goal should be to have as healthy a society as possible, since that obviously benefits the country as a whole. There's many ways to get there, but the system we had was not it, and this law that was passed is not it either.

Again, I could not get past your first lines. Utter bullshit. There is a reason only 20 percent of the population in USA are liberals, they are full of shit.

[ElNono]

Again, I could not get past your first lines.

The fact that you can't even parse through a dissenting view really says a lot more about you, and your anger, than anything I wrote in my reply to SnC...

[boutons_deux]

Cows (and most animals) are so fucking stupid that they will eat almost any shit you feed them, esp if one engineers the taste with god-knows-what chemicals, grease, sweetner. That's why industrial meat is such crap and pathogenic.

American food corps realized long ago that ...

Americans are so fucking stupid that they will eat almost any shit you feed them, esp if you engineer the taste with god-knows-what.

Put some bacon (flavor) or bacon-like material and cheese/butter (flavor) or cheese-like material on a turd, and Americans will suck it down.

Saw an ad last night, typical. Beautiful light-skinned AA in kitchen of multi-$100K house and painfully cute light-skinned AA son, frowning so-cutely at his Pop-tart-looking piece of shit that his breakfast. Yo Mama has the solution! She cuts open a packet and squiggles perfectly some white tooth-paste shit on the Pop-tart. Kid smiles cutely and chomps away.

Corps have realized that the AA demographic has enough money to justify aiming their ads at them.

And maybe the dark, poor, urban AAs will think if they eat that dead food-like substances, they become middle-class, light-skinned, and telegenic. Poor, uneducated sheeple vs highly sophisticated, wealthy corps? Who wins every time?

the "bottom line" (this is America, the Bottom Line is Top Priority), American obesity and obesity-caused diseases are big business. Corps get wealthy selling industrially processed food-like substances highly engineering as mouth candy, but it's pathogenic crap. The shit they sell cost more to package, market, and deliver than the (taxpayer subsidized) contents.

Consumers self-inflict themselves with excess weight and obesity and then the sick-care business takes over and gets wealthy. About $200B / year spent on obesity and obesity-caused diseased, more than Iraq and Afganistan wars combined.

The corps have created a totally toxic, ersatz civilization in America-as-ATM, and are exporting it world-wide. The food, like the "news", is totally fake, a compete lie.

And it will continue to get worse and worse. There's no stopping America's terminal decline.

[PublicOption]

what so funny is the GOP wanted the "mandate" in the bill so their health insurance buddies wouldn't lose customers.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That's it. These are not thoughts, stupid. It's reality. Auto insurance and Obamacare are not even close to the same. Next you will be spewing even if you don't drive or own a car you should pay for auto insurance. It's the right thing to do! Then you will be spewing "I deserve to live in a house instead of an apartment" or "Why can't I have have tickets to the Spews game, I am a fan too"

You want better doctors, freaking pay for them. Quit asking everyone else to pay. Until then, stand in line at the local free clinic and if you have an emergency run your little ass to the hospital or better yet get a fucking job that can pay for the life style you want to have.

You are a idiot. Plain and simple.

Wow so much fail in your post. I'll just say that I am pretty sure I've got more going on than you do do jackie :lmao

...you're like my 8 yr old's friends...... only dumber..

[George Gervin's Afro]

Actually it's a terrible post.

We're already paying for all the stuff he's bitching about through our taxes.
All these guys with pre-existing conditions or borderline heart-attack lifestyles? We're paying through the nose for it. All those people that get their insurance claims invalidated? We pay for those too in the long run.

Not only that. Because all these hospitals have to turn in an actual profit due to their duty to their shareholders, we're all paying for the care + the profit margin. That's how you end up with inflated prices and cost of care that's through the roof.

The goal should be to have as healthy a society as possible, since that obviously benefits the country as a whole. There's many ways to get there, but the system we had was not it, and this law that was passed is not it either.

jack is too stupid to realize we already pay for all off the stuff he rambled on about... jack's about personal insults and resorting to calling people gay and d*ck suckers.. he's like the guy who always misses the ball yet b*tches about some else who can't catch the ball.. he's not very bright

[George Gervin's Afro]

Again, I could not get past your first lines. Utter bullshit. There is a reason only 20 percent of the population in USA are liberals, they are full of shit.

translation: I am so stupid because what I am rambling about has been in place the last 50 yrs....

[Blake]

No not this. George is stupid. Check this link out.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2877236/the_difference_between_auto_insurance.html?cat=9


Are Peolpe Really This Obtuse?

obviously a well thought out and finely edited piece.

[Blake]

If you get sick no third parties get hurt or suffer loss of property.


what are your thoughts on government intervention if society at large becomes suddenly susceptible to some type of deadly viral epidemic?

is it better to provide the prevention to all citizens or to wait to treat it when it actually poses a threat?

[Wild Cobra]

I think the difference being that there is no federaly mandated requirement for automobile insurance. That is something the states do but the federal government does not.

I haven't read the ruling but that was the obvious difference in the mandates when the bill passage was going being debated.
My read is that the government cannot impose commerce on those who wish not to, hence the commerce clause does not apply. Not participating is a penalty, therefor cannot be protected under taxation. Driving is a privilege, and to require insurance would mean living is a privilege.

[Wild Cobra]

Again, I could not get past your first lines. Utter bullshit. There is a reason only 20 percent of the population in USA are liberals, they are full of shit.
LOL...

Isn't that the truth.

[George Gervin's Afro]

LOL...

Isn't that the truth.

Meanwhile the dems still hold 2/3 of legislaitve branches..:lmao

[Crookshanks]

Meanwhile the dems still hold 2/3 of legislaitve branches..:lmao

That's not funny - it's pathetic that there are so many idiots out there who are able to vote.

[boutons_deux]

what's criminal is that the Repugs lose the WH by 600K votes in 2000 and come in like they have a overwhelmingly popular mandate to screw everybody and everything.

Repugs in 2010 think winning the House means their non0-existent platform is overwhelmingly mandated.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That's not funny - it's pathetic that there are so many idiots out there who are able to vote.

We know the tea pottiers are still afraid of the obama death panels..:lmao

[Blake]

Driving is a privilege, and to require insurance would mean living is a privilege.

Do you think basic k-12 education for citizens is a privilege or a necessity?

[Blake]

Again, I could not get past your first lines. Utter bullshit. There is a reason only 20 percent of the population in USA are liberals, they are full of shit.


LOL...

Isn't that the truth.


Wednesday, December 01, 2010

In November, 36.0% of American Adults identified themselves as Republicans; 34.7% considered themselves Democrats, and 29.3% were not affiliated with either major party. That’s the largest number of Republicans since February 2005 and the first time ever that Rasmussen Reports polling has found more people identifying as Republicans than Democrats. ....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

Does absolute failure taste like chicken? I've often wondered why some of you go back for more.

[Blake]

That's not funny - it's pathetic that there are so many idiots out there who are able to vote.

it's pathetic that you think someone that doesn't vote the same way you do is an idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you think basic k-12 education for citizens is a privilege or a necessity?
Start a new thread for that question.

[Blake]

Start a new thread for that question.

Neh.

I find similiarities in the two concepts and I wonder if others do too. If you don't want to answer, feel free to exercise your right to remain silent, but I'm not starting a new thread off on a new tangent.

[boutons_deux]

WC is not only the self-appointed, self-congratulating supreme judge of climate science peer reviewing, he also is thread policeman.

[LnGrrrR]

What's funny is that Obama backed down on the government option... which is pretty much the only option that was probably Constitutional. So now, the only major milestone he DID accomplish/help to pass will get torpedoed by the courts.

If Obama had demanded a gov't option, that part would've probably stuck.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah well Obama wanted to capitulate on the debate before it even started. It is different from the way Bush ran things so I guess thats change. Bush actually went to the mat for his medicare expansion with his own party while Obama was too busy giving up to fight.

[Parker2112]

In pushing Obama health care, Nancy Pelosi dismisses authority of US Constitution


Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson ruled that a key provision in Obama’s health care plan violates the US Constitution. The “minimum essential coverage provision,” Judge Hudson ruled, would force American consumers to buy a government-mandated insurance product whether they wish to buy it or not. There is no provision in the US Constitution that grants Congress the power to force consumers to buy into such a monopoly — the very idea seems ludicrous.

But not to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She believes that her power to force Americans to purchase whatever products and services the government wants them to buy is somehow granted by the Constitution.
In what is now seen as a curiously instructive question-and-answer exchange, one year ago Nancy Pelosi engaged in the following dialog with CNS News:

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

CNS News goes on to report: (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fla… (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/flashback-when-asked-where-constitution))
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a “serious question.”

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”


http://www.naturalnews.com/030726_Nanci_Pelosi_Obamacare.html

[Parker2112]

pelosi's jedi mind tricks to herd sheep.

[ElNono]

That's not funny - it's pathetic that there are so many idiots out there who are able to vote.

I know, right? Democracy is such a failure... :rolleyes

[MannyIsGod]

That the sheep are so herdable to begin with somehow escapes your mind when you advocate libertarianism so I'm surprised to see you bring that up now.

[ElNono]

Does absolute failure taste like chicken? I've often wondered why some of you go back for more.

Plus it's irrelevant to the conversation. Obviously, it's much easier to attack me than the point being made. But jack is mad, so nothing new there.

[Parker2112]

That the sheep are so herdable to begin with somehow escapes your mind when you advocate libertarianism so I'm surprised to see you bring that up now.

I absolutely agree with you on this point, Manny. thats why leadership is so important. Thats also why restraint is so important. Thats why the constitution is chocked full of it.

Thats why this old bat has to scoff at the question. If she takes it seriously, she submits to the bondage of limited govt on some level, which is not desirable to her evidently.


If you dont anchor your leadership with something, its your rights that set sail.

thats my original, but you have my permission to put that on your bumper or something.:lol

[Parker2112]

That the sheep are so herdable to begin with somehow escapes your mind when you advocate libertarianism so I'm surprised to see you bring that up now.

however, I never engage this argument because I think its silly. Some will use capitalize on living in a free society (?), and some wil play xbox, which is also well within their rights, and all that is ok.

But the world wont whirl of its axis if a few libertarian ideas start seeping into the collective consciousness to reign in our out of control hostile imperialistic government that is bankrupt and bankrupting us for generations to come.

funny that you speak of others being sheeple, but this whole facade is just a way for your continued support of the status quo, IMHO.

[Blake]

If you dont anchor your leadership with something, its your rights that set sail.


"something"?

If I anchor my leadership with hot cocoa, will my rights stay in the bay?

how bout "if you don't anchor your [something witty] with leadership, it's your [something wittier] that set sail."

[insert picture of sailboat on black background poster with catchy phrase underneath]

example:

http://imageserv5.team-logic.com/store-logic/products/56/1810/719.jpg

[Parker2112]

last thing, chiggity check my record, manny... I have always borne witness to the prevelance of the sheeples.:sombrero:

[Parker2112]

"something"?

If I anchor my leadership with hot cocoa, will my rights stay in the bay?

how bout "if you don't anchor your [something witty] with leadership, it's your [something wittier] that set sail."

[insert picture of sailboat on black background poster with catchy phrase underneath]

example:

http://imageserv5.team-logic.com/store-logic/products/56/1810/719.jpg

there are a lot of possibilities when it comes to keeping leadership accountable. hot cocoa might be the best :tu

[Parker2112]

I think the framed version would sell big in southern states. just sayin.

[MannyIsGod]

however, I never engage this argument because I think its silly. Some will use capitalize on living in a free society (?), and some wil play xbox, which is also well within their rights, and all that is ok.

But the world wont whirl of its axis if a few libertarian ideas start seeping into the collective consciousness to reign in our out of control hostile imperialistic government that is bankrupt and bankrupting us for generations to come.

funny that you speak of others being sheeple, but this whole facade is just a way for your continued support of the status quo, IMHO.

I support that status quo? No. I just don't support your solution because your solution is incredibly easily to take advantage of by the same problems you complain about.

[MannyIsGod]

In any event, as I've said before libertarianism would be a logical outcome of a informed and educated population. Too bad we're no where near that situation. Until then you go ahead and smoke that libertarian pipe dream.

[Wild Cobra]

Neh.

I find similiarities in the two concepts and I wonder if others do too. If you don't want to answer, feel free to exercise your right to remain silent, but I'm not starting a new thread off on a new tangent.
That's just it. It's a tangent, and I am trying to restrain myself from going outside the meaning of this thread.

Be glad to discuss it otherwise.

[Wild Cobra]

What's funny is that Obama backed down on the government option... which is pretty much the only option that was probably Constitutional. So now, the only major milestone he DID accomplish/help to pass will get torpedoed by the courts.

If Obama had demanded a gov't option, that part would've probably stuck.
I don't know if it's valid, but I heard the whole health care bill will end up being struck down because it's wording didn't allow for only parts to be struck down.

I don't know haw true this is.

Anyone?

[boutons_deux]

Judge Who Struck Down Health Care Funded Anti-Health Care Candidates

The Virginia judge who declared certain parts of health care reform unconstitutional yesterday is a major stakeholder in a firm that donated money to anti-health care right-wingers like Michelle Bachmann, John Boehner and John McCain. As Gawker digs up, Henry E. Hudson owns up to 50 grand in a GOP consulting firm called Campaign Solutions, Inc, which not only boosted the conservative presence in Congress but also helped Sarah Palin jumpstart her PAC. Meanwhile, the attorney general who filed the suit that prompted Hudson's decision, pumped $9,000 into Campaign Solutions over the past two years. Apparently the ruling was not just hateful, it was potentially corrupt.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/392663/judge_who_struck_down_health_care_funded_anti-health_care_candidates/#paragraph2

==========

Obviously, the Repug judge's actions show that he pre-judged/prejudiced his ruling rather than decide on legal merits alone.

[Wild Cobra]

Are we suppose to believe the journalistic integrity of AlterNet?

[boutons_deux]

Refute the facts Alternet reports, BecKKK sucker.

[TheProfessor]

Seems the WH will focus on the fact that this has been upheld by two other federal courts and dismissed in fourteen courts so far. Not a bad track record at the moment. Also, (and this might have been mentioned already), the judge refused to enter any injunctive relief despite finding the mandate unconstitutional. He severed that part despite the fact that there's no severability clause in the legislation.

Interesting point I saw earlier - if the mandate becomes the central constitutional issue and is subject to endless litigation/speculation over the next two years, how well does that bode for Mitt Romney and his presidential aspirations? He'll get destroyed in the Republican primary for that.

[boutons_deux]

"Christian" supremacist nut-fringe Repugs won't support cultist Romney, quite apart from his MA health care project.

Once his 5 boys didn't need to support his campaign (the reason they weren't volunteering to fight), did any of the enlist for the Repug bullshit wars?

[Blake]

That's just it. It's a tangent, and I am trying to restrain myself from going outside the meaning of this thread.

Be glad to discuss it otherwise.

You'd rather go on a different tangent about how you don't want to go on a different tangent.

k.

[Parker2112]

lets get back on the poster tangent, Blake. WC wanna pre-order?

[jack sommerset]

Again, I could not get past your first lines. Utter bullshit. There is a reason only 20 percent of the population in USA are liberals, they are full of shit.


LOL...

Isn't that the truth.



Does absolute failure taste like chicken? I've often wondered why some of you go back for more.

I wouldn't know. You tell me.

Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-Conservatives-Outnumber-Moderates-Liberals.aspx

[Blake]

I wouldn't know. You tell me.

Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-Conservatives-Outnumber-Moderates-Liberals.aspx

:lol

Nicely done. It tastes like crow.

[ElNono]

lol gallup asking people what they think they are instead of what they really want...

http://open.salon.com/blog/kemstone/2010/07/31/you_might_be_a_liberal_and_not_even_know
http://mediamatters.org/reports/progmaj/

[ElNono]

BTW, I consider myself a moderate... I'm sure jack disagrees...

[Wild Cobra]

BTW, I consider myself a moderate... I'm sure jack disagrees...
Look at it this way.

You can be conservative or liberal on specific issues, and be a moderate on average, but I think it's a poor label for anyone.

Those I see who call themselves moderate I believe are liberals, but just see there extreme friends, and believe they are middle ground because of the extremists.

I would call you liberal.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Look at it this way.

You can be conservative or liberal on specific issues, and be a moderate on average, but I think it's a poor label for anyone.

Those I see who call themselves moderate I believe are liberals, but just see there extreme friends, and believe they are middle ground because of the extremists.

I would call you liberal.

Nice to see how you 'believe'... that's sort of like Yoni's 'convinced'

This post perfectly illustrates what a moron you are. You simply disregarded someone's own description of how they view themselves (they would know and you have no idea) and 'believed' your way to make them into something they are not..

fine logic ...


by the way you idiot I don't know anyone who is 'extreme'..

[ElNono]

Look at it this way.

You can be conservative or liberal on specific issues, and be a moderate on average, but I think it's a poor label for anyone.

Those I see who call themselves moderate I believe are liberals, but just see there extreme friends, and believe they are middle ground because of the extremists.

I would call you liberal.

But see, it's all about what you believe, which might have nothing to do with what anybody else believes. That's why self-labeling is truly pointless.
You see politics and the political spectrum entirely different from me. And rightly so, I might add, since it's really a matter of opinion, and always respectable.

I mean, I would label you a neocon, and I'm willing to bet you don't see yourself like that at all.

[George Gervin's Afro]

But see, it's all about what you believe, which might have nothing to do with what anybody else believes. That's why self-labeling is truly pointless.
You see politics and the political spectrum entirely different from me. And rightly so, I might add, since it's really a matter of opinion, and always respectable.

I mean, I would label you a neocon, and I'm willing to bet you don't see yourself like that at all.

nah, WC knows how you gfeel better than you do.. because he believes

[jacobdrj]

Do you think basic k-12 education for citizens is a privilege or a necessity?

I have heard some compelling arguments that k-12 should NOT be a requirement.

[Blake]

I have heard some compelling arguments that k-12 should NOT be a requirement.

I have too.

In the end though, I think it is more beneficial to society as a whole to have an educated population.......at least to the 9th/10th grade level.

In a similar way, I think it is more beneficial to have a healthy population/workforce.

[fyatuk]

So if the govt can't make you buy insurance, why do I have to buy auto insurance to drive?

If the response is "driving is a privilege", then, are we equating healthcare to being a privilege?

If it is then a privilige then hospitals could theoretically, (based on this opinion) turn people away rather than provide health services.

The state can deny you a license and send you to jail for not having auto insurance now...

I think both of these issues need to be held to a consistent standard.

You don't have to drive. You have to live.

Requiring auto insurance amounts to a tax for owning a car going to a private company.

Requiring health insurance amounts to a tax on your existence going to a private company or the government.

Big difference.

Of course, I'm opposed to the auto insurance laws as well ;)

[boutons_deux]

auto insurance is to protect other people from damage you cause to others, aka liability, and secondarily for damage you cause to you and your stuff. auto insurance is mandated with enforcement penalties.

taxpayer/public sick-care facilities are liable for people's sick-care who can't afford ripoff sick-care costs and ripoff health insurance rates, esp if they have health problems. And nobody's yelling socialism and "govt take over" about those facilities.

public/taxpayer-funded health facilities are a humanitarian, even truly Christian/moral service, as much as that pisses off mean-spirited, fuck-everybody, AynRand-ish right-wingers and "Christian" hate-mongers.

So mandating that all people buy health insurance to "protect" taxpayers from liability for anybody's sick-care is perfectly parallel with auto or property owner liability insurance. In the crudest, materialistic terms understood even by ideologically blinded right-wingers and Christian, mandated health insurance is a good business deal.

[fyatuk]

So mandating that all people buy health insurance to "protect" taxpayers from liability for anybody's sick-care is perfectly parallel with auto or property owner liability insurance. In the crudest, materialistic terms understood even by ideologically blinded right-wingers and Christian, mandated health insurance is a good business deal.

Property insurance has no business in the argument, as that's not mandated by law, but often by contractural agreements.

Auto insurance is state mandated, and contains several varieties of opt-outs.

The health law is federally mandated with no opt-out. And the claim of power for federal mandate is a bunch of hogwash anyway. They have a claim to regulating the insurance industry, at least those companies that operate across state lines, but they don't have a proper claim to justify the individual mandate (If I'm a Texan seeking medical attention from a Texas doctor/hospital, there's no interstate commerce there).

Health insurance doesn't belong in the same sentence as other insurance types, anyway. Unless you are talking purely about a catastrophic cost policy, health insurance is a completely different type of beast. What we call health insurance is both a true insurance policy and a managed health policy. You want to mandate everyone has a catastrophic cost policy, that's another argument.

Also, the indivudal mandate doesn't protect anybody from liability. It's a handy excuse, but this health care reform was just a money gift to private insurance companies with no benefit to taxpayers as a whole. It's not going to save the taxpayers anything. It might shift some taxpayer money from the public sector to private, but it's just as likely to increase overall taxpayer expenditures.

The government could have easily instituted reforms that would have eased health insurance (and thier 15-20% markup on health care costs) out of the picture while provided actual protection for the emergency rooms, but that's not what anyone in the government wants, even though it'd be what's best for the taxpayers.

[Wild Cobra]

Leave it to boutons to not understand such simple concepts.

[FromWayDowntown]

Look at it this way.

You can be conservative or liberal on specific issues, and be a moderate on average, but I think it's a poor label for anyone.

Those I see who call themselves moderate I believe are liberals, but just see there extreme friends, and believe they are middle ground because of the extremists.

I would call you liberal.

All politics is binary, I guess.

[ElNono]

All politics is binary, I guess.

Lenin: "...each man must choose between joining our side or the other side"
Mussolini: "O con noi o contro di noi" (You're either with us or against us.)
Bush: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
Hillary Clinton: "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us"